Editor's Note: Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

By Mark Osler, Special to CNN

I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.

What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.

A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.

During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.

After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.

Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).

His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.

It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.

Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.

The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.

The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!

I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota. There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.

The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.

At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.

I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.

It won’t last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.

The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Osler.

soundoff(15,115 Responses)

YeahRight

"that life is precious, and should be cherished each day, not just holidays, and birthdays, but everyday we should welcome each other to another day of life, and make each other's days as if it were their last no matter the skin, etc."

Which is why gays deserve the right to marry in order to protect their families.
Tax Benefits
-–Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
-–Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits
-–Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
-–Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
-–Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
-–Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits
-–Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
-–Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
-–Receiving public assistance benefits.
-–Employment Benefits
-–Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
-–Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
-–Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
-–Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
-–Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
-–Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
-–Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
-–Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits
-–Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
-–Applying for joint foster care rights.
-–Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
-–Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Consumer Benefits
-–Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
-–Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
-–Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
-–Other Legal Benefits and Protections
-–Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
-–Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
-–Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
-–Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
-–Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
-–Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family

July 19, 2012 at 3:31 pm |

Bob

They have already changed the laws on civil unions in many states and they have all those rights.

July 19, 2012 at 6:46 pm |

YeahRight

"They have already changed the laws on civil unions in many states and they have all those rights."

Just a few states and it's not a recognized civil right by the federal gov't. Duh!

July 19, 2012 at 6:48 pm |

Lorraine

Who invited you, Well you know you enjoy my ranting, and my attempt to tell many the truth, that life is precious, and should be cherished each day, not just holidays, and birthdays, but everyday we should welcome each other to another day of life, and make each other's days as if it were their last no matter the skin, etc. This is done by doing the law of life from YHWH of righteousness, and peace for all people on this earth as is in Deut. 32 vs. 45-47, so yes, choose life, and its spritual connection to one another. We are all suppose to be one big family according to YHWH.

July 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm |

JWT

And we can can be one big happy family lorraine. ALl you need to do is accept that gays can marry since it is none of your business. Until then you are off the holidays card list.

July 19, 2012 at 5:53 pm |

Lorraine

OG, and just saying, those gods were idolatry then, and not of YHWH,as today many religions are also idolatry, and not of YHWH, He does not condone religion, this is by man, to control, and to gain, as prophesied in the book of Daniel 7, ad 11 of religons, and the past, and future governments; and no, we are not conversing about ghost, and goblins, but the spirituality of all life, and its connection is YHWH of Hs creations, peace, and righteousness of His law again in Deut. 32 vs. 45-47, of the commandments to do them in order to live in peace, and goodness for all nations on this earth. This is Not of the selfishness, and the haughty, that is of this world today.

July 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm |

Who invited me?

More delusiona rants lorraine?

July 19, 2012 at 12:59 pm |

JWT

None of your versions of gog version's of some truth apply to anyone but you lorraine.

July 19, 2012 at 5:54 pm |

Lorraine

According to those things that YHWH does not accept, it entails, lying, stealing, killing, wrong doing, hate, and perversion, and even the thought of swearing with the lips, one's conduct is mostly considered when we respond to the righteousness, and peace of the Creator YHWH. There is a sense of humbility, and morality, for the meek has been acknowledged as those being set with YHWH, says the prophet Zephaniah 2 vs. 1-3. Therefore, if one is not using these virtues of goodness, and righteousness of YHWHs, and doing His law of life, in Deut. 32 vs. 45-47; they may as well not bother, for everyone is responsible for their own righteousness, and will be accountable in the end of their life, as taught, and prophesied in Jeremiah 31 vs. 30, Ezekiel 14 vs. 14-21, Ezekiel 18. Then remember, in the first creation of man, it was Adam, and Eve, not of the same kind, or gender, but no one can even begin to judge another if they are of flesh, and blood, other than the Almighty Creator YHWH. YHWH Bless.

July 19, 2012 at 11:26 am |

0G-No gods, ghosts, ghouls or goblins

Psst! There are no gods – you are fucked up in the head. Get medical help.

July 19, 2012 at 11:29 am |

just sayin

Lori, hate to break it to babe but your God was stolen from another and much older religion before Adam. You believe in a false god and a false christ.

July 19, 2012 at 11:31 am |

YeahRight

"don't bother with them, they could care less for the gays and marriage "

That's why you've posted your prejudice opinions over and over again with no facts to back you up. Marriage was defined by the US Supreme Court as a civil right. Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

A federal appeals court on May 31st ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same-sex couples, making it likely that the Supreme Court will consider the politically divisive issue for the first time in its next term. This most likely will be decided in the courts and since most courts keep ruling in gays favor they should be able to over turn all the unconstitutional laws prejudice bigots have been trying to pass.

July 18, 2012 at 10:30 am |

Erik

"they could care less for the gays and marriage"

All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.

Reparative therapy, also called conversion therapy or reorientation therapy, "counsels" LGBT persons to pray fervently and study Bible verses, often utilizing 12-step techniques that are used to treat sexual addictions or trauma. Such Christian councilors are pathologizing homosexuality, which is not a pathology but is a sexual orientation. Psychologically, that's very dangerous territory to tread on. All of the above-mentioned medical professional organizations, in addition to the American and European Counseling Associations, stand strongly opposed to any form of reparative therapy.

In my home country, Norway, reparative therapy is officially considered to be ethical malpractice. But there are many countries that do not regulate the practice, and many others that remain largely silent and even passively supportive of it (such as the Philippines). Groups that operate such "therapy" in the Philippines are the Evangelical Bagong Pag-asa, and the Catholic Courage Philippines.

The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.

On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"

Take this interesting paragraph I found on an Evangelical website: "The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" – meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are 'born that way.'"

But that's not at all what it means, and it seems Evangelicals are plucking out stand-alone phrases from scientific reports and removing them from their context. This is known in academia as the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Interestingly, this is also what they have a habit of doing with verses from the Bible.

This idea of sexuality being a choice is such a bizarre notion to me as a man of science. Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.

The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.

Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).

Furthermore, there are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.

Having said that, in the realm of legal rights, partnership rights, and anti-discrimination protections, the gay gene vs. choice debate is actually quite irrelevant. Whether or not something is a choice is not a suitable criterion for whether someone should have equal rights and protections. Religion is indisputably a choice, but that fact is a not a valid argument for discriminating against a particular religion.

July 18, 2012 at 10:27 am |

YeahRight

"They have no credibility"

Actually you're the one that has no credibility,some posting are bishops and then there are the hundred of thousands of experts around the world that have proven you WRONG. . LMAO! Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

Social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.

July 18, 2012 at 10:26 am |

Bob

They have their own agenda no one else s don't bother with them, they could care less for the gays and marriage they use the gays and the Bible and anyone they can. They have no credibility and no scruples so if you wonder about the posts don't worry they are all bogus and reposts

"They have their own agenda no one else s don't bother with them"
That's why I keep posting my crap over and over again.

July 17, 2012 at 6:56 pm |

John

Some argue that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural" it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.

Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, "I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good'." . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.

There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord"? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.

Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, "abomination", the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.

Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?

Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).

That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist; these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex

July 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm |

daveyoung

The reason this man is for gay marriage is because he is gay. Tell him to shuddup/ enough already.daveyoung

July 17, 2012 at 6:04 pm |

Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

I doubt anyone has a clue what "man" you're referring to.

July 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm |

YeahRight

"They have their own agenda no one elses dont bother with them"

It's about civil rights and expert opinions that Bob can't dispute. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

July 17, 2012 at 5:29 pm |

Bob

"They have their own agenda no one elses dont bother with them"

That's why I keep posting my crap over and over again.

July 17, 2012 at 5:27 pm |

Bob

They have their own agenda no one elses dont bother with them

July 17, 2012 at 5:25 pm |

Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

Go fvck yourself, Bob.

July 17, 2012 at 5:26 pm |

JP

Is homosexuality a sin?

Self-indulgence is a sin. But the relationship of two people of the same sex may or may not be self-indulgent.

Abusing the neighbor is a sin. But the exploration of relationships among homosexuals as they search for partners, evaluate their existing formative relationships, and relate to each other may or may not be abusive.

Disobeying what God commands in the Bible is a sin. But, we have biblically-derived criteria for assessing and applying specific commands by reading them against larger themes.
Turning your back on God is a sin. Homosexuals are often among those who have turned their back on the church, and may be sinning because they also rejected the God they found in church. The church needs to be in mission to homosexuals with the message of Jesus and who God really is.

Yielding to your passions, even celebrating them is a sin. Homosexuals do include those who have done this. But it is not an inherent aspect of being gay.

Since we see people who have dedicated themselves to God, and for whom their gay sexual life is integrated into that decision and we see that their sexuality does not draw them away from church we must conclude that being and living gay is not a behavior in and of itself that produces pain to the neighbor and leads one away from God.

By the criteria the scripture sets for us for what is godly life; and by the reasoning scripture asks us to employ, homosexuality cannot be described as against God’s law.

If this seems like a rather quiet sort of justification for homosexuality, then perhaps it is because the grand clichés of this debate have been shouted at us for too long. But look at the Bible: it's demands and vision cut across all categories, not staying on the surface but penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, rejecting all forms of self-justification, all forms of attack on the "other" and all forms of escape from God's assessment of our behavior. How on earth could we have ever thought that a series of flat rules was all God wanted to tell us on morality?

July 17, 2012 at 5:06 pm |

daveyoung

Thanks for figuring out the universe and taking time to explain it to all of the rest of us......

July 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm |

James

The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however; are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.

July 17, 2012 at 5:05 pm |

YeahRight

"dont give a dam about the gays"

That's why we are the one's posting the REAL truth on this issue instead of spewing unfounded prejudice and hatred like you. Duh! Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

July 17, 2012 at 5:04 pm |

YeahRight

"dont give a dam about the gays"

That's why they are the ones fighting for their civil rights and you are not, what an idiot. Marriage was defined by the US Supreme Court as a civil right. Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

A federal appeals court on May 31st ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same-sex couples, making it likely that the Supreme Court will consider the politically divisive issue for the first time in its next term. This most likely will be decided in the courts and since most courts keep ruling in gays favor they should be able to over turn all the unconstitutional laws prejudice bigots have been trying to pass.

July 17, 2012 at 3:52 pm |

Bob

These people that are posting this bs against the Bible dont give a dam about the gays they are atheists or socialists dont feed the trolls. hey yeah did you figure out the hole situation????

You know, your ignorant preacher is the worst person to listen to when it comes to other peoples beliefs.

July 17, 2012 at 7:31 pm |

I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

Nothing wrong with gays and permitting slavery was the biggest mistake the founders of the US made.

But Jesus, no, atheists have no problem with Jesus. Pious hypocrites that want to force religion on others are another matter.

July 17, 2012 at 7:33 pm |

Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

Bob, you're beyond stupid. And you're boring as sh!t.

July 18, 2012 at 7:46 am |

Jeannine

The Scriptures were written approximately 2000 or more years ago when there was no knowledge of constitutional homosexuality. The Scripture writers believed that all people were naturally heterosexual so that they viewed homosexuality activity as unnatural. Women today are pointing out that the inferiority of women expressed in the scriptures was a product of culture and the times in which the Bible was written; it should not be followed today, now that we are beginning to appreciate the natural and God-given equality of men and women.

Similarly; as we know that homosexuality is just as natural and God-given as heterosexuality, we realize that the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality were conditioned by the attitudes and beliefs about this form of sexual expression which were held by people without benefit of centuries of scientific knowledge and understanding.

It is unfair of us to expect or impose a twentieth century mentality and understanding about equality of genders, races and sexual orientations on the Biblical writers. We must be able to distinguish the eternal truths the Bible is meant to convey from the cultural forms and attitudes expressed there.

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.